This is going to feel a little bit targeted, but it’s important: understanding is a story we tell ourselves that feels satisfying. Explanations being plausible contributes nothing to their truth value. The poster above goes over it briefly, but the correct way to test an aquatic ape hypothesis is to look at the adaptations other animals who are aquatic/nonaquatic have and compare. Looking at our adaptations in a vacuum and trying to find an explanation, even if you aren’t picking and choosing is bound to find just-so explanations that are plausible but nearly certainly wrong.

I know this is literally exactly what you talked about, but the best thing you can say is that the real answer is complex. Light as little balls being absorbed and re-emitted is a surprisingly good solution mathematically, but we know it has to be an incomplete picture because light is also a wave.

There are also good practical examples of why this is an incomplete description: it completely fails to explain refraction and reflection. The interesting part to me is that a) the real mean path model is a really good mathematical model of the speed of light in a medium b) despite that not being the only thing that’s happening c) even though it is happening. It’s a very inertial mass = mass situation.

I don’t think it’s an inconsistent position. It’s a problem that poor people, without resources, are denied bail or required to submit to predatory terms to post bail. Simultaneously it’s a problem that the extremely rich, with resources to flee, are routinely granted bail.